Journalist Megyn Kelly is urging the defense team for Massachusetts mother Lindsay Clancy to accept the outcome of a dramatic mistrial ruling, arguing that the high-profile case is effectively finished despite last-ditch legal maneuvers.
According to Mediaite, Kelly used her program to press attorney Kevin Reddington to recognize that the legal battle has reached its practical endpoint after a chaotic sequence in which he attempted an emergency appeal to halt the mistrial.
That effort, launched as Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial in the case of the mother who killed her three young children, triggered an hours-long delay before a justice on the states highest court rejected the move, clearing the way for Sullivan to formally end the trial.
Speaking with a panel of legal commentators, Kelly argued that Reddington had already secured a significant moral and strategic victory by persuading the vast majority of jurors to side with the defense.
Sorry, Kevin. Like, you did a great job. Getting 11 of those jurors on your side actually will probably change your clients fate in a very favorable way, Kelly said, before adding that, this guys got to learn to take the L.
Former Florida state senator and attorney Dave Aronberg chimed in with a more optimistic framing of Reddingtons performance, quipping, Or take a W.
Kelly, however, stressed the importance of maintaining a constructive relationship with the trial judge, noting, It looks like this trial judge will be his trial judge his second time around. So, you really dont want to alienate him completely.
Legal analyst Phil Holloway pushed back on Kellys assessment, insisting that Reddingtons strategy is more complex and long-term than it appears on the surface.
I dont think hes taking an L. And Im not, there may not be another trial with this or any other judge because, see, heres what Reddingtons actually doing, Holloway argued, suggesting the defense is already positioning for a broader constitutional fight.
Holloway described Reddington as playing both a short game and a long game, with the immediate mistrial only one step in a larger legal plan.
Hes not necessarily playing the game that we think hes playing. Because theres the short game which is now, which is today, and then theres the long game, Holloway said, emphasizing that the near-acquittalit was 11 to onehas emboldened the defense.
According to Holloway, Reddingtons initial objective was either to have the lone holdout juror removed or replaced with an alternate in hopes of securing a unanimous not-guilty verdict.
And so his goal was either to get the juror removed or in some way, maybe get an alternate on there so that he could get the 12 to agree to not guilty, Holloway explained, adding that once that path closed, the defense pivoted to opposing the mistrial itself.
Holloway noted that Reddington has opposed it vigorously and hes raised a lot of other issues, frivolous and otherwise as part of it, including this effort at going to the appeals court.
Despite Reddingtons public insistence that he is ready to retry the case week after next, Holloway contended that the real plan is to file what in Georgia is called a plea in bar, arguing that a second trial is prohibited by double jeopardy.
Hes going to say that the second trial is barred on the grounds of double jeopardy. And heres why, Holloway said, outlining a strategy that hinges on the claim that the mistrial was declared over the defenses objection without the manifest necessity required to retry the case.
And so hes going to say that even though this was a jury, mistrial based on not reaching a verdict, hes going to say that it was still error and that in order to try her, there has to be a manifest necessity, which hes going to say there is not, Holloway continued, pointing to alleged judicial errors unchallenged by prosecutors.
Holloway summarized Reddingtons approach bluntly: Hes going to try to get his cake and eat it too. Hes going to try to get his win now from the court of appeals.
Kelly, reflecting a more restrained and skeptical view of expansive appellate intervention, countered that These appellate courts are not actually looking to to perform colonoscopies on every decision the trial court makes, signaling doubt that higher courts will upend the trial judges handling of the case.
For conservatives wary of judicial overreach and endless litigation that drags out justice, Kellys stance underscores a preference for finality, respect for trial-level fact-finding, and a sober recognition that not every unfavorable ruling is grounds for a constitutional showdown.
As the Clancy case moves from the courtroom to the appellate arena, the clash between Kellys call to take the L and Holloways long-game strategy highlights a broader debate on how far defense attorneys should push the systemand at what cost to judicial efficiency, public safety, and confidence in the rule of law.
Login